IN RE: the STATE of New York EX REL. LOUIS M. (2025)

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Veronica G. Hummel, J.), entered May 28, 2024, which denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this appeal is moot because petitioner has been released from the custody of respondent New York City Police Department (N.Y.PD), this case warrants an exception to the mootness doctrine because it presents a controversy that is “likely to be repeated, typically evades review, and raises substantial and novel questions” (Wisholek v. Douglas, 97 N.Y.2d 740, 742, 743 N.Y.S.2d 51, 769 N.E.2d 808 [2002]).  Recent Supreme Court decisions have addressed the issue raised in this proceeding, concerning the use of leg and wrist restraints on a person being involuntarily confined in a psychiatric hospital (see e.g. B.L. v. Agarkar, 82 Misc.3d 846, 850, 204 N.Y.S.3d 433 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2024]).  Furthermore, psychiatric patients are often hospitalized for brief periods shorter than the time required for appellate review (see Mental Hygiene Legal Servs. ex rel. Aliza K. v. Ford, 92 N.Y.2d 500, 505, 683 N.Y.S.2d 150, 705 N.E.2d 1191 [1998];  New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Epi Data Brief, Adult Psychiatric Hospitalizations in New York City, June 2016, available at https://www.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/databrief71.pdf [last accessed Nov. 29, 2024]).  The lack of appellate case law demonstrates that this controversy evades review and that it raises substantial and novel legal questions (see Matter of Bezio v. Dorsey, 21 N.Y.3d 93, 100, 967 N.Y.S.2d 660, 989 N.E.2d 942 [2013]).

As to the merits, Supreme Court correctly denied the habeas petition because petitioner challenged only the conditions of his confinement and did not seek immediate release (see Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Breheny, 38 N.Y.3d 555, 570, 176 N.Y.S.3d 533, 197 N.E.3d 921 [2022]).  Thus, habeas corpus relief was unavailable to him (see People ex rel. Dawson v. Smith, 69 N.Y.2d 689, 690–691, 512 N.Y.S.2d 19, 504 N.E.2d 386 [1986]).  As the court suggested, a CPLR article 78 petition would have been a more appropriate avenue to pursue petitioner's claim (see id. at 691, 512 N.Y.S.2d 19, 504 N.E.2d 386).  However, under the particular circumstances of this case, in the absence of a complete record and certain proper parties, conversion to an article 78 proceeding would be inappropriate (see People ex rel. Keyes v. Khahaifa, 101 A.D.3d 1665, 1665, 955 N.Y.S.2d 786 [3d Dept. 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 862, 2013 WL 1197116 [2013]).

Motion to take judicial notice of hearing transcripts from habeas proceedings in Supreme Court, Kings County, granted.